Reynolds v. Dept/Transportation, et al

Filing 8371

OPINION AND ORDER, it is Ordered as follows: 1) The special master's recommendation (doc. no. 8310 ), as amended (doc. no. 8319 ), is adopted as to all remaining issues, albeit for slightly different reasons; 2) The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (doc. no. 8273 is denied, albeit without prejudice, as to all remaining issues as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/24/09. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:85cv665-MHT (WO)

OPINION AND ORDER This case is now before the court on the special master's recommendation (Doc. No. 8310) and modification of that recommendation (Doc. No. 8319) concerning the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' individual contempt claims (Doc. No. 8273). After an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The special master's recommendation (Doc. No. 8310), as amended (Doc. No. 8319), is adopted as to all remaining issues, albeit for slightly different reasons.

(2) judgment

The

defendants' No. 8273)

motion is

for

partial albeit

summary without

(Doc.

denied,

prejudice, as to all remaining issues. In light of the objections to the recommendation filed by the various parties and in light of the on-therecord representations of the parties at the status

conferences held on November 3, 2008, and February 20, 2009, the makes the following observations. First, the

issue of multiple claimants for the same position, raised in the recommendation, is simply not in a posture for efficient and wise resolution. This issue is not before

the court in any concrete sense; no such claimants, with attendant factual context, have yet been identified. quite complicated legal issue presented is The made

unnecessarily more complex and difficult because the court is presented with only hypotheticals. Second, the

plaintiffs raise in their objections several points of clarification. These questions should be posed in the The court cannot

first instance to the special master.

2

answer for the plaintiffs what the special master meant in his recommendation. DONE, this the 24th day of February, 2009.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE